Rahul K., Son Of Krishnan Kutty v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/23RD POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 914 of 2015 (L) -------------------------- PETITIONER:
-------------------- RAHUL K (MINOR), SON OF KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 15 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER REMA DEVI, AGED 41 YEARS WIFE OF KRISHNAN KUTTY, VADAKKANAKATH HOUSE, PADIVATTAM VITHANASSERY, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3. THE GENERAL CONVENER, REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM PALAKKAD 2014-2015 (DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CAMP AT PALAKKAD-678001).
4. THE CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM PALAKKAD (DEPUTY DIRECOTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD-678001).
R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 914 of 2015 (L) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPANT'S CART.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ITEMS WISE PARTICIPANTS DETAILS DATED 5.12.2014.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECIEPT DATED 5.12.2014. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K2/20000/2014 DATED 26.12.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.914 OF 2015 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had participated in the item-Padakam in the Palakkad Revenue District Kalolsavam 2014-15. The case of the petitioner is that though he performed well, when the result was published, he was allegedly sidelined, by virtue of which he could not secure the first prize and hence he is not in a position to participate in the State Level competition. Eventhough an appeal was filed mainly pointing out the defective sound system, when he was performing, the same came to be rejected as per Ext.P4 order, even without verifying the C.D. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reason is stated in the order, particularly with regard to the various grounds raised in the appeal.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the plea raised from the part of the petitioner. It is further stated that there was no complaint from any corner with regard to the sound system. The Stage Manager has not reported any such defect. It is also stated that there is difference of 22 marks between
W.P.(C)No.914 OF 2015 the petitioner and the first prize winner. There is no plea of malafides.
This Court does not find any tenable ground to call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk